So the FCC chair is threatening networks that broadcast unfavorable news

[struth]

I’d care more about your opinion if you were even close to being acquainted with reality.

you are a living, breathing example of a victim of that disinformation campaign

 

[Marener]

you are a living, breathing example of a victim of that disinformation campaign

Did you ever figure out that your own definition indicates that the FCC is an independent agency?

 

[Seymour Flops]

They were susceptible to public opinion which was susceptible to disinformation.

Fair enough.

Give a couple examples of the disinformation that the public fell for and the biden administration acted on in eliminating the Ministry of Truth or whatever they called it?

 

[Care4all]

they claimed it was a russian disinformation

Who's they? A group of ex intelligence analyst said that it had signs of perhaps being a Russian setup....disinformation.

They NEVER SAID THAT IT WAS Russian interference/disinformation....they said it could be....

And no one believed Giuliani and Bannon because they worked for Trump and had a history for making up shit and trying to frame Hunter with Zelensky bringing fake charges/investigations and accusations against Hunter and his dad in the Ukraine.....to help Trump's campaign against Biden....Zelensky refused.

The laptop came from Giuliani and Bannon, to the New York Post tabloid....who refused to let other news stations view the laptop content when they released their big story....to verify it.

THAT RIGHT THERE, was solid reason to REJECT the story being told about the laptop.

 

[struth]

Who's they? A group of ex intelligence analyst said that it had signs of perhaps being a Russian setup....disinformation.

They NEVER SAID THAT IT WAS Russian interference/disinformation....they said it could be....

And no one believed Giuliani and Bannon because they worked for Trump and had a history for making up shit and trying to frame Hunter with Zelensky bringing fake charges/investigations and accusations against Hunter and his dad in the Ukraine.....to help Trump's campaign against Biden....Zelensky refused.

The laptop came from Giuliani and Bannon, to the New York Post tabloid....who refused to let other news stations view the laptop content when they released their big story....to verify it.

THAT RIGHT THERE, was solid reason to REJECT the story being told about the laptop.

The Biden campaign

They lied to you and you bought it

 

[struth]

Did you ever figure out that your own definition indicates that the FCC is an independent agency?

Haha no it doesn’t you idiot


And it’s not my definition

Please though, show us where Congress created it as an independent agency

 

[Marener]

Fair enough.

Give a couple examples of the disinformation that the public fell for and the biden administration acted on in eliminating the Ministry of Truth or whatever they called it?

 

[Marener]

Haha no it doesn’t you idiot


And it’s not my definition

Please though, show us where Congress created it as an independent agency

the definition you provided:

For the purpose of this title, “independent establishment” means—
(1)
an establishment in the executive branch (other than the United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission) which is not an Executive department, military department,Government corporation, or part thereof, or part of an independent establishment; and
(2)
the Government Accountability Office.

Since you agree the FCC is not a department, is it part of a government corporation or military department?

 

[TimFitz]

they claimed it was a russian disinformation

First of all, it was Russian disinformation.

Second, they requested. They did not order.

Your attempt to equate a caution not to spread Russian propoganda, with a blanket call for ideological censorship fails.

 

[TimFitz]

I’d care more about your opinion if you were even close to being acquainted with reality.

He just makes it up.

 

[TimFitz]

enforcing federal law is not fascism. It's weird you think Federal Communications Act of 1934 is fascist.

There is no Federal law that permits government censorship.

Your claim is, as usual, false.

 

[BlindBoo]

It applied to radio as well as all broadcast mediums, I also believe it was a bad ruling because it infringed on free speech, Broadcasters have not obligation to allow free speech, government has no right to limit free speech and we saw that when the FCC under Reagan dumped the 1st amendment limiting doctrine.

The decision to enforce a fairness doctrine on holders on the broadcast licenses was in response to nationwide radio networks. It did not limit free speech. It did limit the broadcaster ability to control the narrative and broadcast from a single political perspective. They upheld the freedom of speech for people, not corporations seeking a one sided political discourse.

 

[struth]

There is no Federal law that permits government censorship.

Your claim is, as usual, false.

I didn’t say there was

Not sure what you are talking about

There is federal laws regarding broadcast licenses and news distortion

 

[struth]

First of all, it was Russian disinformation.

Second, they requested. They did not order.

Your attempt to equate a caution not to spread Russian propoganda, with a blanket call for ideological censorship fails.

Haha no the laptop was really real

Wow

 

[Seymour Flops]

Cannot even give you a "nice try" for that one.

That was the really quite precocious, Miss Jankowicz, the original head of the Disinformation Board, being interviewed by NPR.

She accuses her detractors of disinformation, but does not give one single example of it.

So the claims of disinformation on the part of detractors of the Disinformation Board are themselves - you guessed it - disinformation.

 

[Papageorgio]

The decision to enforce a fairness doctrine on holders on the broadcast licenses was in response to nationwide radio networks. It did not limit free speech. It did limit the broadcaster ability to control the narrative and broadcast from a single political perspective. They upheld the freedom of speech for people, not corporations seeking a one sided political discourse.

It limited free speech, no one should be forced to broadcast or say things they don’t believe in because of fairness. That is my objection to political correctness.

 

[TimFitz]

I didn’t say there was

Not sure what you are talking about

There is federal laws regarding broadcast licenses and news distortion

Yes, you did. You claimed that the Federal Communications Act of 1934 conferred that right.

 

[TimFitz]

It limited free speech, no one should be forced to broadcast or say things they don’t believe in because of fairness. That is my objection to political correctness.

Your claims is false. The Fairness Doctrine never was about censorship. Nor, was it ever used that way. It was about the balanced presentation of political views. One could present the conservative view, but it had to be balanced out by a similar presentation of other views as well.

When it was abandoned, the door opened to one-sided political marketing, something that Rush Limbaugh and his imitators latched on to right away.

Fox came in 1996. It was founded on the same premise as right wing talk radio. Lowbrow tabloid style entertainment and partisan poltical marketing dressed up as news. Fox never cared about the truth, and neither does its audience.

 

[TimFitz]

Haha no the laptop was really real

I wasn't referring to that.

But that scheme was so preposterous!

 

[struth]

the definition you provided:

For the purpose of this title, “independent establishment” means—
(1)
an establishment in the executive branch (other than the United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission) which is not an Executive department, military department,Government corporation, or part thereof, or part of an independent establishment; and
(2)
the Government Accountability Office.

Since you agree the FCC is not a department, is it part of a government corporation or military department?

Yeah that’s not my definition. That's the defination of a independent establishment for purposes of that title.

Yes, you did. You claimed that the Federal Communications Act of 1934 conferred that right.

No, no i didn't.

The Act, outlines numerous things, including what is required to have a broadcast license. Nobody has a right to a broadcast license and it regulates how one gets one, and keeps one, one thing someone can't do if they want to keep one is distort the news.